I've found a tremendous number of news reports where Fords win and place in contests. The contests fall into three categories, racing, endurance and reliability. Usually the cars are grouped in classes based on cost.

First, A. T. Purcell's Ford six is one of seven out of twenty two cars to receive a perfect score in the New Jersey Trials. The contest contested of five continuous runs of a 94 mile route over 24 hours. . .

. . . A few of the other contestants: . . . . . . . . . More to follow.........

I have enjoyed your posts and think that you are closer to the truth than what has been written in the early Ford books. The guy that my Model R came from had a K touring. It was a work of art and he drove it a lot. It certainly wasn't unreliable. Keep it up.

This contest occurs outside of Cleveland OH in 1907. The article says about 400 spectator vehicles attended. Two Ford sixes win the classes for touring and runabouts costing less than $3,000, beating well known makes such as Stoddard Dayton, White, Pope Hartford and three Jackson's between them. . .

Great stuff! I especially liked the one where seven drivers got perfect scores after driving for 24 hours straight. Imagine what driving under those conditions for 24 hours straight would be like. There seemed to be road racing events all over the country at that time, more so than I thought. And for a "failure of a car", the Ford six seemed to do quite well.

It also sounds like others are enjoying this as much as I. As long as you enjoy the research and posting. Drive carefully, and enjoy, W2

Something for an Model K to be proud of, an 1906 Model K speedster, was in an accident while competing in a Anglo-American 850 mile contest Rally in England 12th Sept 1954. Result; quote; 'A slightly bent 1906 fender and a badly damaged modern car'

Ford wanted to bury the remains of 666 after he took Frank Kulick to the hospital. Ford factory built / sponsored cars would not participate in racing again until several years later.

The remains of the 666 car were rebuilt and pieced together at Greenfield Village (now the Henry Ford Museum) in the 1950's. Frank Kulick was involved in some of the work, you would think he could tell them how it was supposed to look.

By the way Rob there is a good account of this in Charles Sorensen's book "My Forty Years with Ford". He relates how Ford did not want to build the Model K as it was not his idea to build a big heavy expensive car. The Model K was entirely fabricated at Dodge Brothers, then assembled at the Piquette Plant. Sorensen was perhaps Henry Ford's closest confidante, and this is a first person account.

Ford Manufacturing Co. was begun in 1905 so that Ford could build cars that he wanted to build. The Model K was the end of an era, the last Ford product entirely fabricated at Dodge Brothers.

I believe the six cylinder was rebuilt lower to the ground after the accident. These might be the "before and after" photographs. Also, it appears cooling systems changed during this time too. . The newspaper says "eighty horsepower.....1400 pounds"! Tell me Henry wasn't a "speed merchant! (Maybe he did like big fast cars?). That's only 17.5 lbs per horsepower! Models N, T and K all had good horsepower to weight ratios, but nothing like this. .

The same "monster" is featured in this newspaper. It has a 6 X 6 inch stroke/bore, and is called an eighty horse racer. It is much larger than a standard Ford "six" engine. . . . .

. . .

And with Frank Kulick in a lowered version of what appears to be the same racer.

"Ford wanted to bury the remains of 666 after he took Frank Kulick to the hospital. Ford factory built / sponsored cars would not participate in racing again until several years later. "

In less than two years Frank Kulick is back racing for Ford and in the headlines. Seems neither he nor Henry Ford were through with racing. As with much about Ford "history", choosing a history book written fifty plus years after the fact is not as good as eye witness accounts reported at the time (and by disinterested third parties whose only goal is to provide an accurate report).

Ford wanted to bury the remains of 666 after he took Frank Kulick to the hospital. Ford factory built / sponsored cars would not participate in racing again until several years later

I paraphrased the description of the wreck as Charles Sorensen describes it in his book, including the part about Henry driving the horribly injured Frank Kulick to the hospital personally. As you can see Ford and Frank did not participate in any events for almost two years.

Sorensen describes Kulick as being thrown a considerable distance from the car which caused his leg to be broken in multiple places.

I think I missed something. Frank Kulick is injured in late October 1907. Readily available news accounts from the era show Kulick driving one of the two Fords that participated in the Coast to Coast in June 1909. Then I produced two more accounts documenting his driving Ford sponsored cars in races in 1910 and 1912. That is twenty months from the accident and the "several year self imposed racing moratorium" didn't happen.

I am still enjoying your posts. Don't be annoyed by the negative trolls.

It may take me some time but I will see if I can track down the Model K I spoke of. By the way it was a 06 if I remember correctly and it had square valve lifters. I remember being amazed when I saw that engine running. Again, it was a work of art and was not an unreliable car. That was about 25 years ago.

I hope you keep posting what you find out about Model Ks. Don't let one negative post deter you from posting. It seems like no matter what a person posts there are always someone to gripe. I think you can see from the posts above that the rest of us want you to continue. I know I certainly do. The most fun I ever had with my Ts was race them. I always thought the reason ford switched to the selling only the smaller cars was he could sell all he could produce. After seeing Cecil's K (now yours) preform in the mountains I was even more convinced that they were fast, strong and reliable cars.

06s are really rare. It appears only about 300-350 were made, so they are as rare (or more so) than roadsters.

Guys, thanks for your support. I understand this is a "niche" for the club, and don't mean to wear out my welcome.

I'm genuinely fascinated by all the information out there demonstrating a different view about the Ford six than current history presents us.

I intended to post small portions of news items about Model K race successes on this thread, however we drifted off a little, and I'm finding too much to show clips of each article. Currently I'm at about 30 articles where Model K wins or places in competitions. Instead, I'm going to put all of these results into an abbreviated post (and if anyone challenges them, I'll have the news copy to back them up).

I really don't know why there is so much "pushback" against a suggestion that maybe history has given a bad shake to the Model K.

I wish my day job would let me spend the time that you are investing in early Ford history. I thought that the new year would let me spend some time at home but I found out today that I am flying to Hot Springs Arkansas on business tomorrow. I hope that you and I can meet at Chickasha and spend some time talking. I do not understand the push back.

I may never tour Greece, wander through the ancient ruins. Or see the cave paintings in France. The pyramids in Giza, or the ones in South America may never be more visible to me than a National Geographic magazine. But I still, after fifty years, like to read and study them. I consider those early decades of the automobile to coincide with one of the most important turning points in human history. Ancient man began a fade into history as modern man began his real emergence. The early development of the automobile was both a cause, and, an effect, of that turning point. I may never have the opportunity to own and tour a Ford model K. But I will continue to enjoy reading of it. I will always be grateful for seeing pictures of model Ks, whether old photos, or current photos. And I like to see more being learned about it. It is just another piece of our history. Another part of how we became who we are, and hope to become. So, anyway, keep it coming! Drive carefully, and enjoy, W2

Sort of off topic but... It is a long story but Mike and I shared a T mentor. He was lucky enough to live in the same town and have a shop just across the creek from my mentor. I had to take my lessons a little bit at a time and from a lot of long distance phone calls. Life gets in the way and I was always too many miles away. I am proud to say that over the years I have witnessed Mike's becoming one of the more knowledgeable T guys in the hobby as well as a the sort of guy that will help other T guys in any way that he can.

I am not in any pushing back, I am defending the known and accepted history found in innumerable books written by the participants who were there and their historians. All the period news clippings seem completely in agreement with the first person account found in Sorensen's excellent and vividly detailed account.

That the Model K had considerable racing success does not change the fact that Henry Ford did not want to build the car in the first place. The fact that the Model K was a financial disappointment for Ford Motor Company remains just that - a fact. The fact remains that Ford never again in his lifetime authorized manufacture of another large costly six cylinder (or any other number of cylinders) vehicle bearing the Ford name.

Please don't take this to mean that I don't like the Model K. In fact I love the Model K, and the Model F, and the Model B, all of which are very interesting, high quality vehicles that were not very successful in terms of sales and profit.

Because you say so, doesn't't make anything "fact" and cause my (or anyone else) opinions or theories to be automatically wrong.

..............wait a minute. I just spent about five minutes typing a bunch of "points" about things you've typed that were incorrect.

Bottom line, I need to quit responding to this stuff ("stuff" isn't the word I was reaching for). I'm researching and for whatever reason you've taken it upon yourself to "disprove" most of my theories.

While this might provide you with some form of entertainment, it's really frustrating and distracting to me.....so.....how about following someone else's threads for awhile?

Rob, You need to get a little thicker skin to enter the research field. The history and facts that i know are the model K as introduced was a huge lemon, with all kinds of very major problems. The ford company took many back in to retrofit and make them roadworthy. Rear doors would flop open, frames weren't strong enough and had to have trusses applied. Transmission frames cracked. The 2 speed planetary transmission was no where near adequate for roads of the day. The exhaust manifold cooked the other engine parts. The list goes on but i don't want to pile on. Can you imagine being a struggling manufacturer having to fix all these problems along with trying to get rid of the 1000 parts of every type ordered from the Dodge brothers? Of course Henry put a brave face on it when he did make comments to the press. I for one, do not see very much if any lineage from the K to the model T line. The N (R,S)was the older brother to the T. Ransom Olds had displayed by then, that the low priced car was the way to go. Nearly every other car maker had lost money putting forward an expensive model. When the model T came out at $850 it was a miracle car. Still expensive, but we all know the history that came after that. I know 3 owners of the model K, and one was very afraid to drive his with the brakes like they are. Another had to make a whole new camshaft and change the firing order to get it to run right. I think most are started with an electric motor now. Do you hand crank yours? If so, you are my hero! Can you imagine doing that on a cold and muddy road 100 years ago? Most of the other K's are driven very infrequently or are static displays in museums. Keep in mind, the 1903 model A ford had all kinds of mechanical problems right from the factory. That doesn't make them any less sought after. The 1908 model T had bad frames under them. They were all fishplated on the inside so they would hold up. Who wouldn't take one of those. I applaud you for driving your K. They are a very famous, very sought after model of the early Ford history. Other than that, i'm really not sure what you are trying to prove or disprove, but keep at it. tim

I'm enjoying the flow of information here, regardless of whether it supports any particular position. Nothing gets posted here that doesn't get overly-scrutinized, and everyone here knows this. Rob, you've called this man out to weigh your comments here, and his responses appear consistently aimed at the data, not at your character. None of this is worth anybody blowing out an O'Ring over...please keep the data and the dialog coming, but many thanks if we can please loose the edgy tone. Regards, Scott

Honestly not trying to pick sides here. However, you used a term that intrigues me. You stated that Royce was trying to , "...disprove most of my theories."

The scientific process, as it was drilled into me, was that you start with a theory, or hypothesis. You then work to either prove or disprove that theory. You have done a huge amount of work trying to prove your theory. You are somewhat correct in that Royce has tried to disprove same. (Although, on many things I see him actually agreeing with you, but in his own words, which are not always interpreted as being agreeable.) Anyway, I argue that Royce's comments serve a greater purpose. After all, if those early historians had been challenged in their thinking concerning Model K, as Royce is now doing with you, they might not have had the free reign that they seemed to enjoy in "inventing" a history of Ford that suited THEIR theories!

Going back to the start of your research, I believe you invited anyone who felt different about Model K to prove you wrong. I would say that Royce is simply accepting your invitation. I am not arguing that his points are, or are not, accurate or convincing.

This has all been very interesting and has opened up a seldom read chapter in Ford history. I, for one, have discovered how much I didn't know about Ford! I only wish I had the time to each posting, word-for-word.

I'm attempting to systematically address each of these items point by point. What is irritating (get's under my thin skin) is each step of the way, (and this is usually Royce, and we all know it, including you, Royce) my points are dismissed, often with counter "evidence" that is untrue, or just a replay of the same old material.

The problem is, it's impossible to "prove" something as subjective as, "this book says", or "this author wrote". ........... Of course that's what was said. That's why we all believe the ABCs listed above. I can't "un write" or "un say" something. I'm not able to objectively ask any witnesses, or Henry Ford, or anyone else from 1903 thru 1910 questions about what really transpired.

However, what I am able to do, is objectively (as much as I'm able, due to personal bias) provide the evidence left from over one hundred years ago. And the "evidence" I'm basing my conclusions on are photographs, news accounts, and advertising from that specific time. What more can anyone ask? No, I don't believe the anecdotes, cliches, and written opinions because of my own experiences (having had the good fortune) around two Model Ks and due to the information I've found.

Remember, I drew the same a conclusions as all of us probably have (had), that A. B. and C. above are/were the "truth". Why, because I had nothing else to base my opinions on.

However, my opinion about the Ford Model K has taken a 180 degree turn, and I'm attempting to discuss the reasons for my "conversion".

Bottom line, it is frustrating to spend the time and effort to lay out my reasoning, and then to have the same "stuff" thrown back that "that's not right", because someone else who lived during this time, or knew someone who did, said it was so.

I do agree, it's not worth arguing over. I'm accept that many or most Ford people on this forum may not agree with me. That doesn't bother me (and why should it). What does bother me is when arguments are made that are not true, or just appear to be a platform to "prove someone else" wrong.

I think everyone (including myself, because I'm guilty too) should ask them self before posting to a thread, "am I really trying to bring something positive" to this thread, or is this just an opportunity for me to "feel good about my self" at some one else's expense.

If you have something useful to bring to the discussion, (and most of you do) then by all means do so, that's the reason we're sharing on this forum. However, if not, then let it go.

Enough of all that. I'm staring a new thread with contest info I've spent a lot of time on. If anyone would like to check it out and give me your feedback, great. If you just want to tell me "your wrong and I'm right", then please find another place to do it. I've spent too much time and effort for that, and no one would expect that type of response to their efforts.

Jerry, I went back and re read your post. Very good points,,and I agree (I should have said that in the post above), Thanks.

Royce, if you get to this, I appreciate the vast knowledge you bring to the forum. However, your delivery (in my opinion) is terrible. I don't think (hope) that's your intention (or else the "good Royce" is the one I've talked to by phone, and the "bad Royce" is the one with the keyboard), but it sure comes off that way to me.

All the first person accounts of people who were there when the K was being designed agree Henry Ford did not want to build the car. It's going to be hard for you to refute the truth of that.

The poor sales are a matter of record.

No one has said the product was poorly built, or of bad design, except the transmission apparently was not as good as it could have been and the 1906 models were poorly styled. Again a matter of record, tough to dispute.

Like what you are doing in using primary research on developments of that Model K, and big six cylinder cars in the early days.

I have taken this chance to postulate another theory....we know that Henry was crafty.

In later years used his dealers to 'buy' all the inventory so he raised cash fast during a recession; plus the 1915 'cash' back of $50 for buyers...the first rebate check!; plus the $5 work day pay....etc....etc...such a smart guy.

My theory: The Model K was a lost leader to blind the competition to the belief that 'big sixes' were the way.

Henry then able to foil them with the little 4's, the huge success in 1906-07 of the Model N, then R,S, and the T.

Here is Motor 1907

Then later in 1907 Motor, this adv from Ford,

Note how the adv crafts the terminology, of making the competition copy the Ford big six.

The rest of that same adv, leads in to the new 1908 car show line, with strong intentions shown to go to the lightweight four chassis and low price, high quality cars of simpler construction.

Nov 1907

But, as we know, Ford dropped the Model K in 1908......why? The goal was hit, he made that big end run, and left the others in the dust!

So...Ford "used" the Model K six, only 2 years....and then dropped it for the American auto market that he changed to the lightweight fours , Henry out foxed all others